What is one consequence of not following the Browne v Dunn rule?

The consequence of not following the Browne v Dunn rule is that one cannot challenge witness statements effectively. The Browne v Dunn rule requires that if a party intends to confront a witness with a contradictory statement or question their credibility, they must have taken the opportunity to put that matter to the witness during their evidence.

If a party fails to do so and later seeks to challenge the witness’s testimony, the court may not allow them to do so because the witness was not given a fair opportunity to respond. This rule aims to ensure that the witness has the chance to address any inconsistencies in their testimony, thereby promoting fairness in the proceedings and allowing for proper examination and cross-examination.

The other options do not accurately relate to the consequences of violating this specific rule. Evidence not being relevant or being deemed hearsay stems from different legal principles. Additionally, the dismissal of a case is reserved for more severe failures in procedure or evidence presentation, not merely for not adhering to the Browne v Dunn rule.